Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Welcome back, everyone, to the Committee on General Housing, and it is still 04/09/2026. What we're doing now is taking up an issue which we were just looking for, which is actually an S230. It, again, will which is we were discussing it earlier, but we stopped, which is a report on lodging deduction rates.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Oh.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, remember, we were discussing it.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: We were doing S89.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We will be doing S89. Okay. But we are scheduled S89, we've also scheduled S-eighty nine for tomorrow because we knew we'd run out of time, and we will vote tomorrow. Okay. So, there was some question as to whether or not we really wanted this in 02:30, and if so, whether we wanted to change the language in any way, and Leonora, I think you're leading the charge on this one, and she was talking while we were offline with other members of the committee, and have we reached any approach that members of the committee might support as to

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: what we do on this? So I would propose that we follow the measure in S-three 28, which says, GHCb, give us a report on the housing improvements that you've been able to achieve and what obstacles still remain. And I would say scrap this language in S230 until can do enough research or take enough testimony from all of the stakeholders, because it's a delicate ecosystem and it feels like we would be kicking a hornet's nest. And without even knowing

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hey, welcome, Jeremy. Excuse me

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: for interrupting. That's okay. Without knowing who should be giving input, we should not be asking for input that could give us an incomplete picture or that could expose the stakeholders who would certainly be unsafe. That is exactly what I was going to say.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: And I would add that one of the it's what I was thinking when we were having the discussion earlier is like, why is there no link between these two things? But also, the other question that remains for me that bridges those two related ideas of value and quantity is whether the housing that exists could be rented on an open market, whether the housing that exists for farm workers could be rented is of a quality that could be rented on an open market. Because I'm sure it varies greatly according to all kinds of different factors. But I'd like to know what proportion wouldn't be rentable on an Oaks market, and therefore has a completely different value than that which does. Does that

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: make sense? Yeah, yeah. And I think that what the ag and labor department who would be tasked with the question of legislating a new deduction amount have stated to us is we don't have the power to evaluate the housing. Would just look at that deduction amount. And to me, that is the worst path forward for legislating. Legislating with blinders on and without, Right now, like I said, I think that for many, many reasons, people are negotiating just person to person, worker and firm owner. And there is this, again, very delicate ecosystem, and I think we would be basically legislating indentured servitude, potentially.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Marc, do you still have my hand up?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. I didn't. Now I do. Please.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I didn't want to interrupt, but sometimes you don't see it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Here, sometimes you're right.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm gonna interrupt. I agree with rep Dodge in this, and I think there are more questions and testimony needed before we make that that charge. So we discussed that folks who are interested in this topic, and Elizabeth, if you're interested, or if you want to send the types of questions that you raised to Leonora, I think it'd be good for some folks to think about this topic deeper and come back whoever's comes back and work on this in a future session. But I agree that I think it's not ready in the language that was proposed. So I I support

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: k. I'm going to

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Dodges decision choices.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I Thank you. I'm gonna first, as an individual, speaking as an individual, I hate to be in a situation of saying, since I am not sure I want the answer, I am not going to ask the question, just as a general matter.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: We can judge the value of a question.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hear me out. I am very concerned of the way this is set up about the quality of the answer we get is almost worthless to me, so I'm supportive of omitting it as a person. I, as chair, now I'm switching my hats, as chair, I'm sensing the sense of the committee with some division and dissent is that, let's leave this alone, take it out for now, it was put in as a favor to David, and he's not, he's okay, he's not gonna, you know, go to the map on this. He just thought, well, maybe we had to go.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But tell him that members of the committee and him or a member from agriculture have a commitment to deep deeper learning about how what we can ask that will be effective?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: K. So I'm gonna just communicate to cameras. So I don't have to communicate it to Sophie since she's in the room. In our next draft of 02:30, we'll omit section three a. I do think it's safe to say that in the future, when we take up farm worker issues, it's going to have to be jointly with agriculture, and it's going to be a difficult endeavor. I, for one, there's one piece of information I would want More enriching. Yes, more enriching. I think that it's going to, one of the things I would like to know that I don't is, if I am a farmer, and I spend, let's say the number that's permitted is $50 a week, and I contend that the value of what I provide is not 50, it's 100, can I deduct 100, or am I limited in what I deduct from my taxes to 50? I just don't know. I'd like to find out. I think that's a very key piece of information.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Government taxes is the only business organization that is missing from that language.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Exactly, that's another reason I don't want to mess with it. And the IRS, because that's where the real tax is. If the answer is, I can deduct whatever it costs me, then I don't know how motivated I am even to find out. But we'll find it, but to be continued, this is not going away. Alright. So, what we're going to do now is talk about S89. Sophie is with us, we have some time, but we're going to vote tomorrow on it, but we can talk about it. And as Sophie is going to explain to us, her, yours truly requested of her, we have two drafts before it. Sophie, do you want to come up? And we have your very elegant chart in front of us. So what I'd like to do today, number one, if there's anything anyone wants to say by way of discussion, we should just say it, and number two, I'd like to get a sense of the committee, which draft you want to go ahead with, and that doesn't have to be a vote, I just want to get a sense of the committee. Then tomorrow, someone can make a motion to lay that on the table, and then tomorrow we'll vote. We have our esteemed council with us.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I was actually prepared to talk about it's 02:30, so give me a moment. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: That's the thing, counsel. To do

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: this to you, to go back and forth and back.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I just bring all the files, that's just what I do now. Good call. Maybe we should go to your office. So there were actually three different versions that I believe were under consideration by the committee. So one was just the version that came out of the Senate, which I don't think I've posted on the website for today. And then the version that we haven't walked through, it's version 2.2, that just added the language that was discussed the last time I was in here on the accompanying situation.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The wider world, yeah.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, there was some clarification around how to define that line of duty and then the other version is the 3.1, which is essentially everything that you had previously discussed, but not including the clinical licensing, the workers and mental health counselors, so taking that out. So that's the general.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: In other words, the Senate version, what we remember at Sophie's request, forget about the right law, just at Sophie's request, we added, well, not just Sophie's request, at Sophie's initiative, we added two things to the bill no matter what. One is something, a section that allowed the board to pay reasonable fees to help them if a claim had to do with illness, and they needed an expert, and the other was to allow the allowed perspective, make its perspective only. And so, the two drafts, right, Sophie, if I said this correctly?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so those are both included in version 2.2 and in version 3.1, they're not included in the original Senate as passed by the Senate. But really the difference that exists between two point two and three point five is the licensed clinical treatment. Right,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: and I, so really I would argue that the two ones before us are two point two and three point one. In other words, we shouldn't pass just the Senate version because the Senate version didn't have

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Didn't have the perspective. It didn't have what the request of treasurer's office that we add, that they can spend a little money on an expert if they need an expert, but that otherwise, the two versions we have are 3.1 is just the Senate version with those two extra things added, prospective only, and reasonable fees to cover expenses associated with illness claims, occupation related illness claims. Mary?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I propose that we pass the Senate version because of the history of the appropriations committee. If they had been neglected in taking up the bill that was presented to them several times over the years. And I feel that if we add anything to it, they will use that as the excuse to not pass this important bill. Any other comments?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Doctor, do you see I have my hand up?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead. Wait, we have two people ahead of you.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I heard a question. I want to respond to Mary's point, but also, we've talked a lot about ride alongs, but there is wording in here that basically says, even if you were to meet at the site of the emergency, that that is still line of duty, right? Like if you are in the police vehicle or ambulance or whatever, riding, but you go to the site yourself. So the language in 2.2 that we landed up with last time was, this is the line of duty, and so it is page three, lines seven through 10, capital F. With respect to clinical social workers and clinical mental health counsellors, accompany law enforcement officers to assist in responding to an emergency situation involving an individual or individuals experiencing a mental health or emotional crisis. So it's not saying you have to be in the vehicle, but you do have to be accompanying law enforcement.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That was the clinic, that was the ride alongs.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: It is, that's what we've been saying.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yeah, that's only the ride Okay.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's getting worse in translation, which is like you're saying ride along. So it's not explicitly saying it's That's been clarified. Yes. So up on so earlier on page two, lines starting with line six, line of duty with respect to firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and volunteer personnel service an answer to a call, including going to and returning from a fire emergency or participating in a fire or emergency. So that's part of that, right? You're not

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: saying that that So, F

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: page two of 2.2, line six, this is the definition, so subsection four talks about line of duty and then capital A, capital B, capital C goes through what the line of duty means for each of the categories of emergency personnel. So the definition of line of duty for firefighters, EMTs, volunteer personnel is under A, there, lines seven through 11. What this is saying on the next page, with capital letter F, line seven through 10, is what line of duty means, specifically for clinical social workers and clinical mental health counsellors. So that's the language accompanying law enforcement officers to assist in responding to emergency situations involving an individual or individuals experiencing a mental health or emotional crisis. It's not specifically referencing whether you're going to, coming from, that is the definition of language duty for those folks, is what's on page three. So does that mean that if they're on their way to responding, when it says accompanying law enforcement, does that mean they have to physically be next to a law enforcement officer for any of this to count? That was what was requested to be added in terms of folks that are working with law enforcement officers dealing with these kinds of situations. Okay, so they don't get included under volunteers? Right. Okay. There's a little separate line of GT definitions for each of the different categories.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Be clear, and then I'm To gonna go be clear, just to clarify. There are, the Senate bill had firefighters, right? It had law enforcement officers, it had DOC employees providing security, and it had family service employees, okay? And psychiatric. And state operated therapeutic. Then it has a line of duty definition, and the line of duty definition is sculpted, it's very specific as to different ones. It has a different, A is about the firefighters, B is about the law enforcement, C is with the corrections, different definition for each one of them.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: The thing that misled me was that I read volunteer personnel, and that made

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: me think that that covered any It did, yeah. Okay, in other words, it's very specific. The difference between these two drafts, that is two point two and three point one, is that 2.2 has what I'm calling the ride logs, because they are the ones who, for me, I was running with it, and I'll get to where I am on this in a minute, I was running with it, but I just wanted to pyramid it on top of law enforcement officers. It was really about, you know, we agreed to do law enforcement officers, this was people who were right with a law enforcement officer when it happened. Elizabeth, I was originally sort of running with what I thought was Elizabeth's idea, but Elizabeth wanted to be broader, and she said yesterday, I'd rather just go, you know, with without messing with this individual draft. Anyway, Emilie. Madam?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, yes. Thank you. Hello. My preference would be I agree with Mary, but with the addition, and I think Mary agrees with this too, of the treasurer change because we need the it to to be administered properly, and they need to have those guidelines. So senate version, but with the treasurer's language.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How about the clarification about perspective?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: The what?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's also the treasurer's direction. She means both. Right?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. The treasurer's treasurer's request the treasurer's office requests additional to this because that was not caught in the senate. You see? Does that make sense? That's my preference.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That would be your answer, 3.1.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Mark is asking whether you want both, the the treasurer to be able to cover their fees.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yes. And 3.1.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Add their language request for perspective cases only. Not for this to be retroactive.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Oh. You're

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: okay with both of those changes?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I would like to support whatever the the treasurer's office requested because I think that they're the administers for 3.1.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Think those are the two treasures that will be

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: asked for the SCA, World Series, and the

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: with it being prospective.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: For those new categories.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Elizabeth and Mary?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I was lying in bed the other night, as I do every night.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's good.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: And then I was thinking to myself, a reason for having it be tied to the event and the profession Here's another reason, which is, what if a scenario included requiring an ASL interpreter or a language interpreter, and therefore, it would really be necessary at a scenario like that. And therefore, to me is another reason to either tie it to the scenario or just leave it alone. And at the moment, I just don't think it's worth it to go back and forth and try to keep fine tuning it. Because I do think that if we start listing out, unless we're able to, if we do start listing out various professions that it does run the risk of being shut down. That is the furthest thing from what I want to have happen.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other guests, Mary and Tom, and Ms.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Just want to say I appreciate what Representative Burrows has said, and all of these other categories are very important. I understand that. I do also support the treasurer's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: statement. The small changes, yes.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes, I do support that. And I just feel that we have discussed this bill for so long, and it's a bill we don't even want to use. We don't want anyone to lose their life while they're doing their job. We honestly truly do not. But I feel the firefighters already have this benefit. So I feel it is extremely important and necessary that we pass this bill. And down the line, if you want to add to it down the line, start a new bill, whatever, I would be for that. But right now, I am respectfully encouraging committee members to support this bill. Thank you.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: So I have a question just to clarify. It's it's more of a process question. I wanna see if I'm understanding Yeah. What you're saying correctly. If we make no changes to a senate bill, but there are appropriations

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in it

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: It goes to appropriations. So it's gonna go to appropriations

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: no matter Not what we only that, if you wanna know what the real rule is, not rule, custom, I think it's custom, might be a rule. If a bill originally had an appropriation in it, and the appropriation has been stripped out, it still goes to appropriation. I guess under the theory they might put it back, I don't really know why, but anyway, so it will go to appropriations. The question is, and I would argue, now I'm arguing, okay, I'm arguing, I would argue that the small changes that we're making, which I will call cleanup changes at the request of the treasurer, will not make it more difficult in appropriations than if we didn't do them. Appropriations will do what it's going to do. I think I have a feeling that it would pass appropriations, but, you know, I'm not sure. Don't think it's going to be more difficult to pass it with them, they're so minor. Yeah.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Appropriations than just getting true appropriations. I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think the Mary argument, okay, let me call it the Mary argument, which is, don't change more than you have to, that argument would apply against the right laws. Yeah, that definitely is a new thing. And

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm bits from the treasurer.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. That's not I think the stuff from the treasurer is different.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I would be I would be supportive of the treasurer's requests and address the categories in the future. So it doesn't have the same issues in the pros. If that makes it a little bit more streamlined to deal with the pros.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Did you have a comment?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I had another process question, which is if a probes takes this off the wall again, do they get a chance to say do they rewrite things?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They could, although it's generally They're

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: only supposed to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: do the They're only supposed to mess with the money.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is there a way to related things.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Find out ahead of time whether version 3.1 with the or version I guess, 2.2, whether 2.2 with the added categories and the treasurer things, whether that makes them more or less amenable to passing it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, I'm speaking on a guess.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Educate because

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: certainly I've been brought around by adding categories, even though if I were wearing an appropes hat, a policy hat says,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think I Mary's my own feeling is, Mary's right. The more we add, I don't think that adding them, I'm gonna call them technical amendments, saying it's prospective, I mean, they're not unimportant, but what we're calling the, I'm going to call technical benefits, you know, it's prospective saying it's just they can use some of the money to hire an expert if they need it, that's not to make any difference in appropriations. And in categories, it could. One of the reasons it could is precisely the discussion that we've had rather endlessly in here. I mean, I'm confessing, I was the one, I listened to Elizabeth, and I said, well, how about trying this out? And I'm now convinced that was a mistake. Really? Know, it's just, come on, I think the Mary argument is right, it's just complexifying, and I personally feel like, enough, you know, the reason, I'll tell you, it's really influenced me, I started, God forbid, Googling, and there are so many professions out there that are dangerous, I don't know, A lot more dangerous than some of this. And so I don't know. So

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: my pushback on that is that it's still up to the treasurer's committee that disperses all of this. Like, the legislation still says, take the money from the general fund, but they're going to have to get permission to I do feel more at ease if we're talking about honoring people who've lost their lives in service of answering an emergency situation, people that are running towards danger, then I don't have a problem with adding categories. And even if we limited it to the one single category as it is now of firefighters, that committee could still be faced with the same difficult financial decision. Right? Right now, we only have enough for one. If three people passed or even two, it would still have to figure out whether the general fund dollars could come in or not. So to me, the category thing, if we're talking about honoring, it's up to the committee to decide whether they and I know they don't want that, probably.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So you're saying you'd support draft 2.2, not draft three

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: point Yeah, that's the case I'm making. But I respect that.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah, okay. I'm just trying to clarify.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. So anyone else wanna I'm gonna ask for a sense of the committee with hands. You don't this is not committing you. We're gonna vote tomorrow. Okay? But I'd like to know whether just kinda where we stand on these two drafts. Just to clarify, draft 3.1 is the senate version with the technical amendments. Draft 2.2 is the senate version, technical amendments, plus the write off. Okay? And I know that Elizabeth supports 3.1. So I'm gonna ask, who supports 2.22. Who supports 3.1? Okay. Set. All Okay. The way we're gonna do it tomorrow, Mary, tomorrow, I'm gonna ask you to make a motion, okay? You make a motion, and then people are going to have to vote on it.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Why? Is there a reason why we're not voting today?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. I think it would be better for various reasons if we vote tomorrow. Okay.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Just wondering.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. So we're gonna vote tomorrow. It's gonna be on the agenda, everybody. Yes?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I still don't understand the funding part of it. How it works? It's only 95,000 from one person. What if, God forbid,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: yeah. There's some of money a reason you don't understand funding. It's a little opaque, but the way it works is when you have, as in this it could apply in different cases, when you have a fund, all a fund is is that we've segregated some money away from the general fund in a special place for a special purpose. Okay? In this case, it's this. When that fund and then you have a board that runs it, and that board has a request that's bigger than what's in the fund, which is what you're describing. Right? If the legislature's in session, they have to request the money from the legislature. Write that.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Actual votes, just the groups or the entire?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think it would be the, let's say, if it was before crossover, I'm just going to get into the weeds, if it's before crossover, correct me if you think I'm wrong, Sophie, the request would have to go through appropriations, appropriations would have to decide to put it in the budget, and it would come to the full House to vote on it. It would be one of the elements of the budget. If it was after crossover, they would have to go to the Senate and ask the Senate to put it in the Senate version, and then it would come back to the House or Conference Committee, and then what this bill does is answer the question, well, what happens if the Assembly isn't in session? The e Then it goes to the e board, and they have the power.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: So last session, it was in the BAA, because at that time, they didn't know far enough in advance to put it in the government's budget, but they had pending claims and they didn't have enough money in the fund. So the treasurer asked and in the BAA, I think they got 220,000 put into the fund, they were able to pay out on those 2 claims and they currently have just over 94,000 in there, which would pay for one and possibly some additional fees if necessary. But again, if there was a mass incident or whatever, then they would need to come back to the general assembly to get the appropriation. And so there's no, we're not understanding, not the fund gets refilled on a regular basis, no. And there's no appropriation in this bill, it's just there's a potential in the future that there will need to be an appropriation, if there are more claims that come in. Was a long period, I think 2016 to 2024, where there were no claims whatsoever. So the money sat in the fund. My question is, would this legislation put the state at risk if they could not pay it

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: out? No.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I want to hear from Marc. I mean, if that was a mass casualty, think nineeleven happening, terrorists were bombed, yes, that's gonna be something that the legislature would have to figure out what they were going to do with it. Right now Could survivors sue and say, look, this is what it says of the law? Well, they have the right to appeal if they're denied a claim, if they're held that it's denied. But right now, the way the law is written is, if the board determines they're eligible to receive the benefit, then they get $80,000 Okay, and so if somebody is found eligible, but they are one of 50 people that would be eligible because of a mass casualty incident, are we opening up the state to being sued? If that happened, I think the legislature would have to figure out what they wanted to do about it. I now, I said, I think it was unusual for them to have three claims all come in at the same time or around the same time, and they weren't related. I know, and we don't have a glass, like we

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: don't have It's hypothetical. This is

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: a hypothetical. Historically, this has not happened in Vermont, God forbid. But is this stage on the hook? But would this stage be on the hook? Well, the door is providing an $80,000 benefit if you meet the criteria on here, and then that's up to the the board itself makes the determination onto whether folks are eligible. But if they fall within it, then the way it's written at the moment is yes, it's an $80,000 benefit. It gets paid out to the survivors. That's been my question about this completely. If there was something where there was a There isn't specific language about a right to sue or anything like that in there. There's no specific language around that. There's a right to appeal if you're denied. Right, but if you're found to be eligible,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we It's say May. It says, in the event the balance of fund is insufficient to pay monetary benefits awarded by the board when the general assembly is not in session, the emergency board may transfer.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's just telling the the e board, when we're out of session. But if we're in session

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It doesn't say shout.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: My question is, if we are in session, then this language is not No.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's not great. No. But if I was what it just says, it doesn't say anything about the transfer by the legislature. It only says something about the transfer by the E board. I mean, With you're the legislature, if I was representing The court. If I was a court, I would say it's silent on the subject. It just says there's a fund, and it's established, and comprises transferred made by the assembly, transferred by the e board, etcetera, and then it says, I'd say, well, it's really hard to know whether that's an obligation to transfer or a requirement, and me, knowing what I know without having researched it, which is worth not much, I would say, you don't create a liability in the legislature without very express In other words, a requirement that the legislature has to pay it would have to be expressed.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's what the loss That's what it is, what we are expressing. Okay, and it should advise you that ultimately the board is responsible for determining whether to award the benefits. Right, but where is that? It doesn't, well, now it's under 2.2 as well. Yeah, let me just keep you on, as we get from that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They can always decide, I think that they could decide to award less. That's But not the board, not the board.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: It does say 80. So, on page four of 3.1, line nine, a decision to award monthly benefit shall be made by unanimous vote before, shall be made within sixty days. But above that, in subsection three, line three, the board shall be responsible for determining whether to hold the monetary benefits. And there isn't explicitly, I think that there isn't explicitly an appeals process. I think I'm thinking more of the workers' comp like a few days.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can I add one thing? The firefighters already have this, and it hasn't been an issue.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't think it's an issue, but it's been raised by the lawyers at the here in the committee of whom there are quite a few, and they've raised this issue. You married? Okay.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: It's okay. Let me remind you that the payment would be made one year after the claim.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Or after one year.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: So I had it, which is not in there any longer, that got taken out from the Senate. Originally the Senate bill had in it that the board had up to a year to make the payment because of the concern about what happens when the legislature is not meeting and on the Senate floor there was a concern about that length of time and so that's when the reference to the emergency board was put in so that the emergency board can provide that. There was a concern about somebody being eligible to receive the award and having to wait a year for money, so that was lending people and stuff came

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: in. So

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: there's there's money in the fund right now.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. $94,000. And

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: the treasurer so we're giving the treasurer permission to disperse that in certain circumstances. We're not ask we're asking for an appropriation. No. The appropriation happens when the fund gets replenished. Replenished. Wouldn't it go to appropriation then?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Are you wondering why it has to go to appropriations?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yes. If the it's an appropriation,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: can I relate to this? Another lawyer in the court

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: gets So Correct.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, we could talk to yeah.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Go to yeah. Does it have to go to approach if we're not asking for an appropriation? That might be a year or five years.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. We can ask. I'll tell you what. We'll ask Betsy Ann. Okay.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Initially, bill was passed our committee and was going to be reported on the floor, and the day it was gonna be reported on the floor, we were told it was not going to be on the floor because it was only to appropriations. I

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: don't know if that's I will say in that circumstance, so that was three years ago. Right. But I'm saying the reason it got convoluted was because that was the same year in the BAA we went from 50 to 80. But it's still hypothetical.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. We'll ask Betsy Ann over I cannot wait. The thing, you know, on liability, you've got to remember, I think the chances that something bad happened, like three people were killed, and that the legislature said, No, we're not going to fund it, or zero, or close to zero.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yeah, we'd all just, like, on some wood, please.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I do think that, unfortunately, our experience is there's all kinds of things the legislature decides to do, and it never appropriates the money, But I don't think this would be one of them. But I will ask Betsy Anne, yes, and then we can move towards lunch.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I appreciate the conversation. I don't think that now is the time to add other sections, which is why I support So the three point when I stepped out, we took the test right after, Sophie did the walk through the other day, We have an inter agency task force in my community. We have through a federal grant that we have. So that's our state's attorney, our law enforcement, our person, our embedded social worker who does the ride alongs. Our mental health clinicians and our other community partners, whether that includes our shelter advocates, etcetera.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: And so I got on that call and I was speaking with them about this, had just gone over this, and I just was inquiring of their thoughts on their level of safety, and they said fortunately, in our department of corrections, all those folks are on that call. And, know, we need to pass what we know we can pass and what we said we can do. We need to at least move that forward. Adding more forward, they all said, in Lamoille County, I'm only speaking for Lamoille County, this is our constituency, our agency. And they feel our embedded worker felt safe. She's like, I get a vest. I'm always with Morrisville PD, and I've never felt like I've been escalated in that position. And our corrections person stated that this amount is not really a life changing amount, you know? And you know, and so he's like, he's like, you know, yes, but it would have been better if it were more. So I'm just saying that it's like, we get it. So yes, we need to pass it. And also, in my community, it's like, yeah, we'll take it, because families will need it, but they're going need more. But they'll take that, but it's not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think it's great you were involved in that conversation, that's a really, that's a real world conversation, it's Gayle? Tough

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: So I got that originally in the 'eighty five or 'eighty four, it's a token to show appreciation. So it's not really about the impound, it's about understanding that. The perception of it. Yes. I know that this bill is three years or four years old, I wasn't here. And anything that I'm going to look at or vote on is going to be carefully explored in my brain before I vote yes or no, even though people have done work before, I don't have a problem with the bill. I just have a problem with the fact that we keep on saying firefighters have it already, firefighters 95% of the time are going toward a very dangerous situation. That's not the case with cops or correction officers or anyone else where it's always going to be a dangerous, life threatening situation. So that's where I had to find the balance for myself. The money part of it is just bizarre to me because there isn't really appropriations that sit there. There's $94,000 that straggles now. We hardly use it. What if, especially in the climate the way that it is right now, what if we had to? Is that money gonna be there? And are those people going to be able we're gonna be able to show the appreciation by having it there? So that's just what's rattling in my brain where it's not a definite yes or no. I mean, we're gonna vote on it tomorrow, and I'm gonna give thought to the bill and read it over again and really do some soul searching.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There is, just by way of background, funds, in the world of special funds, you try, as a general housekeeping matter, not to put more money in a fund just to sit there, because then it's not available in the general fund to use, you know, year in and year out. Typically, for example, we just had a big debate over money in a technology fund, which you may recall there was some discussion on the floor. The technology fund was not just, Oh, here's $50,000,000 to support technology. You try not to do that. There were like four specific projects. We knew the timeline, we knew what they were, they knew what they would cost, we put that amount of money in, and it turns out we didn't spend it all, and so there's a big fight over what to do with the extra, but generally you try not to put more in a segregated fund than you're going to spend. So here, it's not irrational. All I'm saying is it's not irrational to have a process where we say we have no idea how much we're going to have to spend, so let's prime the pump a little and leave it in there, and then if we need more, we'll appropriate more when the time comes. There was

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: It's de minimis, we're not even talking about Well,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I mean, in other words, somebody saying, should we have put 300,000 in there just to sit? There was a people didn't wanna do that. Yeah. And this bill, the senate bill, and both of these drafts, plug a little hole that was there, which was, what about it when we're not sessioned?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Is that why when it went into appropriations, there was an issue that had to do with the funds.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I really don't know why at all.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Nobody knows why.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, but I'll talk to Betsy Hahn over lunch and report to all of you. I will report to Tom, would you like to come with me, Tom? That would be delightful.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Wait, what do you have for us, Betsy Ann?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, Tom, like I said, we have a lot of

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Why does it go to a Well, because she sends things to the committees. So why does it go to a is if we have

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: an We active have actually no probe.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. There anything else?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Was Senate appropriations, but again, because it didn't have an appropriation in it, it was a very quick meeting.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Think, Sophie, tomorrow, what I'm sensing from the committee is I think it's great if you come when it's being voted on, if you're available, in the off chance that there's any wiggle on what's in it, but I think that probably it looks to me like the sense of the committee is favoring 3.1. I think Mary will be moving 3.1. I think that if the committee were to turn it down on the grounds that it prefers 2.2, well, great, we have 2.2. I think the chance of that happening is rather unlikely. You follow me, everybody? Mhmm. Okay. Okay? Anything else before we adjourn? We are adjourned for the day, and tomorrow we will convene after the House floor, and we will have that's when we will in the morning, we'll vote on this bill. K? Every any any last words?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: We're voting on which draft, and then we're voting on.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The way I'm doing it is, rather than vote on which draft, I ask for a sense of it to be. What I'm hearing is, with one exception, people favor three points letter. So I ask Mary, will you move tomorrow at three point one? And then people can vote, you know? If it passes, it passes. And the people who liked 2.2 have the choice of voting for 3.1, and swallowing their concern or voting no. Okay. So I'm just I was

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: just clarifying that that we're we're only focusing on one thing tomorrow.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's all. And we're we have we do have a witness potentially. Are we going to hear from the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State is coming. Remember, Emilie has some language. It looks like they're okay with, but we're going have them in to tell us whether they're okay with. Alright?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Cool. Anything I just have a quick question about this. So right now, all the categories are state employees. Right? Some of the ESO. Oh, because of the firefighter and law enforcement, but the categories that have been added are all state employees. Law enforcement was added. No. But I'm saying originally. Okay. Right. That that was in our bill. Corrections. Corrections. That's the problem. Family cases. Yes. State employees. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Not yet. Any last comments? Questions? In that case, we